Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description is free to add provenance semantics instead: `amount_usd` is populated only where a source states it, and `segment_source` distinguishes hand-reviewed segments from rule-inferred ones. It also discloses that the sports-betting segment is excluded from category totals — a non-obvious counting rule. It stops short of stating ordering, pagination, or what happens when `segment` is omitted.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is front-loaded with what the tool returns, which is good, but the segment list is a long run-on clause and the exclusion note ('not part of the category, not counted in its totals') restates the same idea twice. Roughly half the text is output-field enumeration that could be tightened.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload, and it does: website, short description, total sourced raise, latest round, all dated rounds, plus the `amount_usd` and `segment_source` caveats. The main remaining gap for a list-style tool is the absence of any ordering or completeness guarantee.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining what each `segment` enum value means and by flagging the special semantics of `sports-betting` (not part of the category, not counted in totals). It also ties `key` to a landscape identifier obtained elsewhere. It does not say whether omitting `segment` returns all segments.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the resource concretely: a market landscape keyed by landscape and filtered by segment, returning every company with its rounds. The enumeration of the seven segments makes the scope of the result unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_category or get_market_map, which an agent may see as similar aggregates.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. The agent is not told to call list_landscapes first to discover valid keys, nor how this differs from get_category / get_market_map. Only the schema's passing reference to `/api/v1/landscapes` hints at the prerequisite.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.